Allowed

Sahil Naeem Chikhlekar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023ABA/718/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court considered an anticipatory bail application where interim bail had been granted due to FIR delay and discrepancy. Convincingly proving his innocence was insufficient; the court examined prima facie discrepancies in prosecution accounts and habitual offences before making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The order of interim bail dated 10th March, 2023 is made absolute. The applicant is directed to attend the police station and refrain from unnamed activities.

Sahil Naeem Chikhlekar Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:30392

¶2

31-ABA718-2023.DOC

¶3

Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2023

¶6

Sahil Naeem Chikhlekar ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶7

Mr. Mubin Solkar, a/w Thahir Hussain and Anas Shaikh, i/b Ms. Tahera Qureshi, for the Applicant. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Hafeezur Rahman, for Respondent No.2. API R. S. Narawade, Padgha Police Station, present.

¶8

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 10^th OCTOBER, 2023

¶9

ORDER:-

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

By an order dated 10^th March, 2023, this Court was persuaded to grant interim bail primarily for two reasons. One, there was a delay of about six days in lodging the FIR.

¶12

Two, there was discrepancy in the prosecution version as reported in the Forest CR No.21 of 2022-2023 and the FIR.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the first informant invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the first informant making an endeavour to explain the discrepancies. The first informant has asserted that upon eqnuiry it turned out that there were only five assailants and the applicant was

¶14

1/3

¶15

31-ABA718-2023.DOC

¶16

one of them and four were unknown. In contrast, in the

¶17

forest report, it was alleged that the raiding party was accosted by a mob of 15 to 20 persons and they assaulted the members of raiding party and fled away with the vehicle which was seized by the forest guards.

¶18

Prima facie, the discrepancy is such that the endeavour of the first informant to explain the same by filing an affidavit does not merit countenance. To add to this, delay in reporting the incident especially that of assault to a lady guard, prima facie erodes the veracity of the version in the FIR.

¶19

The learned APP submitted that the applicant has been habitually indulging in identical offences. It was submitted that two offences have been registered against the applicant after this Court granted interim protection.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant joined the issue by inviting the attention of the Court to an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing the release of the applicant in the event of his arrest in CR No.452 of 2022, which was pressed into service on behalf of the prosecution.

¶21

In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am impelled to make the order of interim bail absolute.

¶22

2/3

¶23

31-ABA718-2023.DOC

¶24

Hence, the following order:

¶25

: O R D E R :

¶26

(i) Order of interim bail dated 10^th March, 2023 is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall henceforth attend the Padgha Police Station as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in the activities for which he has been arraigned in this case.

¶29

(iv) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶30

Application stands disposed.

¶31

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶32

3/3

Sahil Naeem Chikhlekar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Naeem Chikhlekar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Shyam Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Baban Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vibu Varghese and Ors. Vs the State Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandurang Nanasaheb Rakshe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Alka Satish Herekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swapnil Bhausaheb Sobale Vs State of Maharashtra